Kingsbarn Developer Meeting Recap: 39 North Project Update & Next Steps

On June 5, Kingsbarn developers hosted a community meeting about the proposed 39 North development in Kings Beach. The developers shared significant project changes but faced strong community skepticism and concern over transparency, process integrity, and genuine community benefit.

📝 Key Updates Presented by Kingsbarn

(These updates reflect what was presented by Kingsbarn at the June 5 meeting. Community interpretations and additional context follow in later sections. Looking for the full history of 39 North? View the complete timeline of County decisions, developer changes, and milestones. »)

🏨 Hotel

• Revised Architecture to look more “Old Tahoe”
  
• Reduced Hotel Height from 6 floors to 4 floors (from 75ft to 56ft, a 25% reduction)
  
• Reduced hotel room count from 179 rooms to 132 rooms (a 26% reduction)
  
• Kept 189 parking stalls
  
• Relocated hotel car access from Hwy 28 to Salmon Ave
  
• Broke up hotel with visual break at street level

🏘️ Condo-Hotels

• Created open space with visual breaks between townhomes on Fox Street
  
• Revised Architecture to look more “Old Tahoe”
  

🏘️ Understanding Condo-Hotels: TRPA vs. Developer Descriptions

• TRPA Definition: According to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, condo-hotels are considered lodging (not housing). These units are privately owned but limited to 90 days per year of owner occupancy. The remainder of the year, they function as hotel rooms. They require TAUs and are not counted toward affordable or workforce housing goals.
  
• Developer Description: In the meeting, Kingsbarn stated that townhome owners choose to rent their units or that they could be managed as part of the hotel’s rental pool—raising questions about whether the units are de facto short-term rentals (STRs) or housing for the community.
  
• Community Concern: Attendees expressed unease that these ownership models prioritize investors over locals and could contribute to ongoing issues with housing accessibility, neighborhood character, and tourist impacts.

Workforce Housing

• Decreased length of Workforce Housing Building from 247 feet to 192 feet (a 22% reduction)
  
• Increased workforce housing count from 62 to 63 units
  
• Added seven 2-bedroom units
  
• Increased number of Workforce Housing Parking Spaces from 50 to 68 (a 36% increase)
  
• Increased Green Space area
  

🏗️ Snapshot of Public Input: Challenges & Expectations

Process, Procurement & Developer Selection
Community members expressed lingering frustration with how the project has unfolded behind closed doors for years. Many remain troubled that the 2018 Purchase-and-Sale Agreement was executed without a formal RFP—even though a Request for Information (RFI) went out in 2016—so no competitive public process followed, despite the land being taxpayer-owned and highly visible. That 2018 agreement outlined a concept for the Kings Beach Center including 80–150 hotel rooms, 10–40 condominiums, approximately 15,000 square feet of retail, and 2,000 square feet reserved for civic use (with a library among the options)—features that have since evolved or disappeared from view.

In 2019, Placer County designated the adjacent Eastern Gateway parcel as a complementary workforce and commercial hub. That Purchase Agreement envisioned 45 workforce housing units and 10,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial and office space, intended to balance the hotel-heavy Kings Beach Center site. Today, however, neither commercial space nor civic-use square footage is proposed, raising concerns that promised community-serving elements have quietly been dropped without public explanation.

At the June 5 meeting, Kingsbarn told the audience it is the fourth developer on the deal and has been involved for about four years. That turnover, without any fresh public vetting, has amplified distrust. After seven years of waiting, residents now see the scope realigned to meet TRPA and TBAP ordinances—but fear that CEQA review could be fast-tracked, curtailing the meaningful public input long promised but not delivered. As detailed in the 39 North Kings Beach Timeline, this cycle of developer turnover, sparse engagement, and long silences has already eroded community trust.

Transparency & Public Access to Information
esidents noted that no updated site plans, financials, or timelines have appeared on Kingsbarn’s or Placer County’s websites for more than a year. Several said they’ve had to rely on word-of-mouth, meeting screenshots, or public-records requests just to track basic facts. Without a central, regularly updated project page—posting drawings, traffic studies, financial asks, and deadlines—locals argued they cannot stay engaged or hold decision-makers accountable.

During the Q&A, one attendee asked point-blank, “What’s the population of the site?”—only to hear the developer reply that they would “have to work up that number.” Yet a January 2024 staff packet already lists about 105 permanent hotel jobs and roughly 636 construction jobs—figures that presuppose an internal occupancy and staffing model. The memo’s job totals show Kingsbarn does, in fact, run detailed head-count projections, but the underlying “heads-in-beds” assumptions have never been shared. That discrepancy—detailed staffing numbers on paper, but no public population baseline—reinforces calls for full disclosure before CEQA moves forward.

Public Subsidies & Incentives
Kingsbarn repeatedly said the project “isn’t getting a subsidy,” framing any transient-occupancy-tax (TOT) rebate as visitor-paid. Yet a January 2024 Placer County memo shows the developer previously sought a performance-based rebate worth up to $38.6 million over 20 years—tied to actual room occupancy and revenue projections—a request the Board ultimately rejected.

Kingsbarn is now pursuing a revised rebate and a TAU transfer through the North Lake Tahoe Economic Development Incentive Program (NTEDIP), expected for Board review on June 23–24, 2025. Residents asked whether a decades-long rebate should flow to a single private project or be shared across multiple initiatives that lift the broader economy.

The NTEDIP was created to support projects that provide clear community benefit, economic diversification, and local opportunity—not to underwrite luxury lodging on public land with limited transparency.

Public Land Transparency
The project remains on taxpayer-owned land, and Kingsbarn has not yet closed escrow. Community members voiced deep concern that no public-facing process ever weighed alternative uses—such as higher-density housing, civic space, or a mixed-use marketplace. One speaker asked pointedly, “Why does public land move forward for private profit when the community never saw an alternative plan on the table?”

Speakers emphasized that meaningful public benefit must be clearly defined before committing land held in the public trust. They urged the County to explain how this proposal—primarily a luxury hotel and condo project—offers greater long-term value to the community than other options that were never publicly explored.

“Taxpayers are carrying the burden of delay, uncertainty, and potential loss of community value,” one resident warned—calling for clarity not just on financial outcomes, but on the opportunity cost of what was left off the table.

Traffic & Safety
Speakers raised serious concerns about traffic congestion, emergency access, and wildfire evacuation—especially in a community already facing constrained roads and limited escape routes. One speaker cited Bonta v. County of Lake (2023), noting that under California law, projects cannot worsen evacuation conditions unless fully mitigated.

Several residents questioned whether the decision to move the hotel entrance from Highway 28 to Salmon Avenue was designed to lower visible traffic counts on the main corridor slated for study—potentially downplaying the project’s true impact. A retired firefighter called for an independent, parcel-specific evacuation model—separate from the developer’s traffic consultant—to assess real-world clearance times. Others asked whether large emergency vehicles could safely navigate Salmon Avenue at all, pointing out that no public turning-radius diagrams or street modifications have been provided.

Under the four-party agreement, a formal traffic-and-evacuation study may begin in July 2025. But residents warned that if approvals are granted before that data is complete, lives could be put at risk.

Hotel Parking & Post-Office Lot Replacement
Kingsbarn told the crowd the current 22-stall Post Office lot would “come back as 19 free public stalls” split between the underground garage and Salmon Avenue: “Anybody can park there for free—to go to the post office.”

Residents pushed back, questioning how “free public” use would be guaranteed over time—especially without posted restrictions, designated signage, or enforcement plans. Several warned that, in practice, public use could easily be displaced by hotel guests, valet services, or private events.
One attendee put it bluntly: “We already have so little parking. If this gets absorbed into the hotel, locals are the ones who lose out.”

Workforce Housing Parking Adequacy
Kingsbarn noted it had increased parking for workforce housing from 50 to 68 stalls—a 36 percent bump—but said further expansion underground was “cost-prohibitive.” When questioned during the Q&A, the developer stated: “If more parking is required, we can reduce the workforce-housing unit count… we’re only required to do 12 units.”

That comment sparked alarm. Residents interpreted it as a threat to scale back housing if challenged on parking adequacy—suggesting that workforce units were more a bargaining chip than a protected commitment.

One speaker asked where visitors, second household cars, or service vehicles would go if no overflow plan exists. Another added, “No one can visit you if there’s nowhere to park,” warning that pressure could spill into already maxed-out neighborhood streets.

Without clear ratios, designated guest spaces, or an enforceable parking plan, many saw this issue as emblematic of a deeper concern: that essential community needs are still treated as negotiable.

Workforce Housing Affordability
Kingsbarn pointed to its Carson City complex, the Marlette, as the closest comparison:
“Studios lease for about 1,560 dollars a month, and two-bedrooms a little over 2,000.”
With Kings Beach service wages around 19 dollars an hour, residents doubted such rents would truly serve local workers. Kingsbarn said units will be filled from an open waiting list—not prioritized for Kings Beach employees—leaving uncertainty about who benefits. The developer also repeated it is only obligated to build 12 apartments and could scale back if parking rules tighten, stoking fears that affordability remains a bargaining chip.

Mixed-Income Integration
Residents urged Kingsbarn to integrate the 63 workforce apartments into the hotel-and-retail block rather than isolating them at the site’s edge. One attendee said bluntly: “You’re creating two towns in one—your design puts the condos and workforce units over here, and the hotel and shops over there. That’s not how we live.”

Speakers emphasized that healthy, thriving communities are built on integration—not segregation. They pointed to the Town Center/Eastern Gateway Plan, which explicitly encourages vertical mixed-use (housing above shops) to keep residents, daily foot traffic, and local spending in the core. A longtime renter added that mixing units downtown “keeps eyes on the street and daytime customers in the cafés,” echoing the plan’s walkability goals.

Retail Footprint & Design Priorities
Attendees expressed concern that the hotel lobby’s footprint significantly outweighs the proposed retail space—potentially by a three-to-one margin. They feared this imbalance could result in a permanent loss of leasable downtown frontage, weakening Kings Beach’s walkable, year-round economy.

Speakers asked how much of the commercial space would be accessible to local entrepreneurs versus transient-oriented tenants, and whether rents would be affordable for small businesses. Several noted that without clear protections—such as community-prioritized leasing or local business incentives—the space might default to high-end or out-of-area operators. One shop owner warned that without small, street-level storefronts, “you wipe out the very businesses that give Kings Beach its character.”

Another nearby retailer added that construction fencing, dust, and traffic disruptions could choke off foot traffic for years—jeopardizing existing businesses long before new storefronts are ready. Multiple speakers called for Kingsbarn to publish a leasing plan that prioritizes community-scale tenants and ensures commercial vitality isn’t an afterthought.

Economic Vitality
Kingsbarn described the hotel as a catalyst that would “kick-start Kings Beach and attract more patrons,” yet many locals were unconvinced. Residents argued that lodging alone doesn’t guarantee lasting prosperity—especially if storefront rents rise and the very entrepreneurs who give the town its identity are priced out.

One shop owner warned that multi-year dust, lane closures, and staging areas could choke off foot traffic long before any promised influx of guests. Another asked whether the new jobs would be stable, year-round positions for local residents—or mostly seasonal roles filled by people from outside the basin.

As one speaker put it: “What we see is a project prioritizing tourism over local benefit.”

Without clear safeguards—affordable retail leases, local-hire commitments, and a construction-impact plan—residents questioned whether the project will genuinely boost small business and community wealth, or simply inflate rents and operating costs that push locals out.

Everyday Services & Grocery Supply
“Our grocery shelves already go empty in peak season—what happens with 130 more hotel rooms?” asked one resident, pointing to limited supermarket capacity and the risk of shortages during wildfire evacuations. Several speakers urged the County to assess cumulative visitor demand on essential goods and services—especially during emergencies when locals and tourists may rely on the same strained supply chains.

Trash, Visitor Behavior & Nightlife Noise
everal residents emphasized that visitor education must go beyond trash pickup—urging clear guidance on bear safety, late-night noise limits, and neighborhood respect. Without an enforceable visitor-management plan, they warned, Kings Beach could face a rise in nuisance complaints, service strain, and community tension as short-term guests replace long-term neighbors.

Community Aesthetic & Scale
While some attendees appreciated the lower roofline and use of natural materials, many still felt the project was far too large for the site and surroundings. One speaker said bluntly, “It looks like a city building was just dropped into Kings Beach,” capturing widespread concern that the scale and massing are out of sync with the area’s small-town character.

Others noted the project would block lake views, cast long shadows, and overwhelm nearby streetscapes. Several called the revised design “window dressing,” arguing that cosmetic touches—like façade tweaks or rustic finishes—do little to address the building’s overall bulk. One longtime resident said the development felt “more like it belongs in a city than a mountain town,” and asked why no smaller-scale alternatives were ever presented.

Environment & Native Landscape
Speakers called on Kingsbarn to move beyond design aesthetics and address the project’s long-term ecological footprint. Several requested native, drought-tolerant landscaping, dark-sky lighting, bear-safe infrastructure, and energy-efficient systems as non-negotiables. “Design isn’t mitigation,” one resident said. Without clear operational commitments, they argued, the cumulative impacts of a 132-room hotel and 38 condos will strain water, power, and natural habitat.

Developer’s Tone
Several attendees described the meeting as more of a sales pitch than a genuine dialogue. When residents raised concerns about affordability, parking, or public benefit, the developer’s responses were often seen as defensive or dismissive—undermining trust and leaving many unsure whether feedback would be meaningfully considered.

🌲 CEQA & Meaningful Community Engagement: Critical Concerns

County staff and Kingsbarn say environmental review is the next step, but residents have heard “wait for CEQA” for years without seeing the process begin. People now worry the review will be fast-tracked to meet deadlines in the County’s purchase agreements.

Since the last community meeting in May 2024, much of the official effort has gone into policy tweaks that would make the project easier to approve. Many of those changes fell through, and Kingsbarn has come back with a design that fits existing TRPA/TBAP rules—yet, as attendees noted, that pivot happened with little public collaboration.

Residents stressed that CEQA is not a box-checking exercise but a legal and ethical safeguard meant to protect both the environment and the public interest. They asked for four concrete commitments:

• Publish a CEQA timeline showing every milestone, comment window, and decision date.
• Prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates wildfire evacuation, traffic, and cumulative impacts.
• Release a detailed pro forma and financing plan so the public can see cost assumptions and subsidy requests.
• Negotiate a community-benefit agreement spelling out rent levels, local-hire targets, and affordable commercial-lease terms.

County staff and Kingsbarn said a formal CEQA process will occur, yet the developers remark of—“I didn’t have to do this today”—left many feeling the meeting was more about checking a box than opening a door.

Core concern: if CEQA is rushed or narrowed, will the community ever get the deep, transparent review it has been promised? For residents, it is their right to understand, evaluate, and shape what happens to their land, environment, and neighborhoods.

📍 Final Thought: The Public Is Paying Attention

After years of evolving plans, shifting developers, and stalled environmental review, many in Kings Beach are asking not just how this project came to be—but who it truly serves. One resident summed up the feeling shared by many:

“What has truly been gained for the community—and what has been given away?”

As the project moves toward potential approvals this summer, the public is watching closely. On taxpayer-owned land, with taxpayer-backed incentives, residents continue to call for transparency, accountability, and a reset that puts Kings Beach first.

📆 What Happens Next?

Placer County Board of Supervisors Meeting (June 23 & 24):

Two 39 North–related items are expected to be on the agenda:

1. TAU Incentive Request (Round 2): The developer is requesting TAUs from the North Lake Tahoe TAU Bank through the NTEDIP program. This follows the Board’s January 2024 rejection of a larger TAU and rebate package.
2. Four-Way Agreement Amendment: The Board will consider proposed changes to the existing Four-Way Agreement that could alter current CEQA expectations, possibly giving the project more flexibility to proceed without a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

This meeting represents an essential opportunity for public input. Residents are encouraged to attend, comment, and ask: Should public resources and long-term tax rebates support a project that still lacks clear community benefit, affordability, and transparency?

Environmental Review Initiation

A formal project submission to Placer County is expected soon, which would officially begin the CEQA process.

Community advocates continue to call for close oversight to ensure that CEQA is conducted thoroughly and not fast-tracked to meet developer or contractual timelines.

📚 Additional Resources

• Keep a lookout for upcoming posts in our Strong North Tahoe Blog Series, including a detailed deep-dive into what’s at stake with 39 North and why TAUs, incentives, and public land use matter for Kings Beach.
  
• 39 North Kings Beach Timeline
  
• If you are passionate about this project and want to help advocate for our community, please consider joining the Strong North Tahoe 39 North Action Group.

Stay engaged. Your participation is essential to ensuring this development genuinely benefits Kings Beach residents and businesses. Mark your calendars for June 23 & 24 and prepare to speak out!